Antecedents and Consequences of Board IT Governance: Institutional and Strategic Choice Perspectives
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In spite of the potential benefits of board IT governance and the costs of ineffective oversight, there has been little field-based research in this area and an inadequate application of theory. Drawing upon strategic choice and institutional theories, we propose a theoretical model that seeks to explain the antecedents of board IT governance and its consequences. Survey responses from 188 corporate directors across Canada indicate that both board attributes and organizational factors influence board involvement in IT governance. The results suggest that proportion of insiders, board size, IT competency, organizational age, and role of IT influence the board’s level of involvement in IT governance. The responses also indicate that board IT governance has a positive impact on the contribution of IT to organizational performance. Overall, the results support the integration of strategic choice and institutional theories to explain the antecedents to board IT governance and its consequences, as together they provide a more holistic framework with which to view board IT governance.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it